A New York state trial judge has ruled that the city of New York cannot escape a lawsuit brought by five people alleging they were unlawfully arrested, detained and injured by police during the 2020 demonstrations following George Floyd's killing.

New York Supreme Court Justice Leslie A. Stroth said in an order Thursday that she was denying a bid by the defendants — the city, the New York Police Department and four individuals officers — to dismiss claims that police flouted the state's penal law and constitution when they arrested demonstrators instead of issuing them desk appearance tickets on the spot.

In January 2020, months before Floyd's death, state law was modified to require cops to ticket rather than arrest people accused of low-level offenses. Police arrested the plaintiffs at protests in May and June of that year, charging them with disorderly conduct and for disobeying a curfew imposed by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio in response to looting and destruction. All charges were either dismissed or never filed by prosecutors.

The case largely focuses on the meaning of the word "arrest." At its core, the dispute is whether the law forces police officers to issue desk appearance tickets — which require suspects to show up for court hearings — at the scene of an incident or whether they can transport them to police stations and booking centers.

In her order allowing the suit to move forward, Justice Stroth said she didn't have to rule on those arguments at this stage of the litigation but added that "clarification is needed" on the law.

"Defendants fail to address the fact that the plaintiffs were held in vans and cells, restrained for hours, and were clearly in custody and not free to leave for several hours, which is what occurs in what defendants describe as a full custodial arrest," the order says.

In an amended complaint filed in June last year, the plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the law prohibits police from arresting people for low-level offenses and to award damages for violations of Section 12 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, which includes protections against "unreasonable searches and seizures" similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. The complaint also included claims of false arrest, assault and battery, and excessive force.

In a partial motion to dismiss filed in July, the defendants argued that they did not "arrest" the demonstrators, but rather "transported" them from the scenes of their offenses to a precinct or booking center to issue appearance tickets.

They said the statute at issue — New York Criminal Procedure Law, Section 150.20 — authorized them to issue tickets in locations other than the locations of the incidents or they otherwise had "absolute immunity" in deciding that custody was appropriate under the circumstances.

In her order, Justice Stroth said it was too soon to make determinations on immunity issues.

Marlen S. Bodden of The Legal Aid Society of New York, which represented the plaintiffs alongside attorneys with Debevoise & Plimpton LLP working pro bono, hailed the court decision as a victory.

"The NYPD is not above the law, and this ruling enforces that reality," she said in a statement.

Andrew Ceresney, co-chair of the litigation department at Debevoise, said in a statement that the firm was committed to ensuring that "all New Yorkers have access to equal justice."

"We are pleased that the court denied the city's motion to dismiss, and look forward to vindicating our clients' rights as the case now proceeds," he said.

The NYPD did not respond to an email seeking comment. 

"While the city is disappointed with this decision and that the court has allowed the case to proceed, we are confident that we ultimately prevail on the merits of the claims," Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department, said in an email statement.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs — Charles Douglas, Julian Gilbert, Derek Baron, Emily Martin and Nicholas Moore — said they were placed in handcuffs or zip ties, transported to a booking center or police precinct in "overcrowded, filthy, and overheated vehicles" and detained for several hours before being issued tickets.

"Despite the law's clear mandate to issue appearance tickets, the NYPD unlawfully arrested, handcuffed, and in some instances physically brutalized the plaintiffs," the complaint says.

Douglas alleged in the complaint that, at the end of a demonstration against police brutality in Union Square on May 31, 2020, several unmasked officers piled on him and he was forced to sit on a sidewalk for several hours with his hands cuffed before being placed in a hot police van without air conditioning en route to police headquarters in Manhattan.

Gilbert said that following a peaceful march in Brooklyn on June 4, 2020, he was yanked from his bicycle and thrown face down onto the ground before being taken to Brooklyn central booking, where he was moved among multiple "filthy, foul-smelling, and overcrowded cells," the complaint says.

Baron, Martin and Moore were among the over 300 protesters the NYPD trapped and arrested in South Bronx on that same day. The incident sparked public outrage and several civil lawsuits, some of which have been settled.

NYPD's crowd control tactics were criticized as too brutal and continue to be the focus of lawsuits — including one brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James — that were consolidated for pre-trial purposes and are currently before U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon and U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein in federal court in Manhattan.

The demonstrators are represented by Andrew J. Ceresney, Jared I. Kagan, Brandon Fetzer, Daniel Joiner and Samantha B. Singh of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and Corey L. Stoughton, Marlen S. Bodden and Russell S. Novack of The Legal Aid Society of New York.

The city of New York, the New York Police Department and the individual officers are represented by Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Stephanie D'Agostino and Jeffrey S. Dantowitz of the New York City Law Department.

The case is Douglas et al. v. City of New York et al., case number 153606/2021, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

--Editing by Rich Mills.